Check the health and status of the Memro MCP server and its connections.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_system_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does signal that the call is a read-only health probe with no side effects (zero parameters, "check" verb), which is useful. However, it does not say what signals are inspected (connection state, auth, latency), whether it can fail or return degraded status, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, and the resource being checked is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is at the sparse end of what a health-check tool should communicate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (zero params, no nested objects), which lowers the bar, but there is no output schema and the description never explains what the health report contains. An agent knows when to call it but not what it will get back.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Check the health and status of the Memro MCP server and its connections" gives a specific verb (check) and a specific resource (server health plus its connections), so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not need sibling differentiation because no sibling name suggests a competing status/health tool, but it also never states that explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic tool to call when something seems wrong or before/after other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no mention of whether it should be polled or called once per session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.